Not ON game topic, but WW2 and funny.

[Liam]

Originally posted by Blashy:

Indeed. I never said the Germans could win, I said they could have been in a position to sue for peace.

If they could've consolidated their gains in 1940 after France who knows?

That's a chunk of Europe, it's just not easily converted into a More Powerful Machine overnight. USSR was a foolish move isolating the Axis and forcing a do or die situation as you mention poor diplomacy

then again a better plan altogether for Germany would've been eating a Portion of Poland, as France was biting off more than she could chew and stopping there and today she might be a Medium SuperPower, militarily.

Anyways Blashy how the heck do you survive in Quebec? I was just there off topic and the taxes kills.. Plus being English

[Blashy]

I agree, I always thought that getting back the Rhine, Austria, Czechoslovakia, half of Poland and stopping there would have been good.

But his goal was world domination, hehe.

Taxes and Quebec, ah yes. Lets see taxed to hell but little to show for it, we're taxed like those Scandinavian countries but yet have like half the services, a poor electoral system (Canada as whole), horrible in the environment. But honestly, I live in Gatineau it is WAAAYYYY cheaper than living in Ottawa, where I work, which is in Ontario (for non Canadians).

[Kuniworth]

Originally posted by Stalin's Organist:

If there's no point discussing it then why bother withthe game?

We're curious animals - we always think we could have done better, and we want to show how.

Certainly we can't change anything, but that's not why we discuss it - we discuss it as an intellectual exercise, or to make ourselves feel superior, or out of curiosity.

there's certainly a point to discussing it!!

Yes of course there is. But from which point of view? read my reply again.

[Rolend]

Blashy I am not sure he had a real goal, bottem line he was a nut case. I am not so sure he could of gotten away with just stopping at Poland. I think even had he the French and English might not of been so quick to call for peace. Now maybe had someone killed Hitler after Poland they could of worked something out but after Poland Hitler was already very well hated.

[hellraiser]

Some interesting 'what-ifs'.

http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/excerpts/hitlercouldhavewon.aspx

[Blashy]

Originally posted by hellraiser:

Some interesting 'what-ifs'.

http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/excerpts/hitlercouldhavewon.aspx

Kind of sounds like what was done in SC and what we try to do in SC2. Grab all the minors for the resources.

Except that USSR eventually enters the war, would it have done so historically? I personally do not think so, I think it would have kept its lands and built a huge military force and then who knows.

[ June 08, 2006, 07:01 AM: Message edited by: Blashy ]

[Rolend]

Interesting point of view and possible. I do think you are wrong Blashy, I think by 44 the Russians would of been ready and Stalin was as much a nut case as Hitler, those two were bound to knock heads.

[JerseyJohn]

xwormwood

Great list of assassination attempts. Thanks for posting it. Hitler himself didn't believe in it. He had some oddly contrasting beliefs: didn't hesitate to authorize the murder of untold millions on the basis of race and nothing else, yet didn't believe in assassinations of opposing leaders because it was immoral and without honor.

A couple of years back I read a biorfaphy of Reinhard Heidrich in which at least one or two of those attempts were actually staged by the SS and deliberately botched so they could arrest arrest otherwise protected individuals.

But there's no denying Hitler had more lives than a cat. If the bomb would have gone off on his plane flying back from Russia, if von Stauffenburg would have placed his briefcase someplace else or if it hadn't been moved as Hitler stepped away or if it would have been primed with it's full charge ...

I like that scene in The Producers where Goebles throws his cigarette in a flower pot (no smoking around the Fuhrer) and it blows up. Hitler sighs, "They try, oh how they do try!"

[TaoJah]

He lost the war when he got greedy : the US and UK would never had attacked him if he just held Poland, Low Countires and France. Let's face it : there was no political motivation from the UK and the US to help France, Benelux and Poland out, they just watched the Germans invade country after country.

The US and UK now say that they fought the nazies out of principle and that the world should be grateful and all that, but they didn't do anything until they were attacked first.

Even saying that they would have started fighting against Germany when it became known what happended in the concentration camps is speculation : it's the same reason why no one atacks the US today, even when they torture and murder Iraqies. Most people just don't care enough to fight over it and the propaganda does the rest.

And, no, I don't say that the US-invasion and tortures in Iraq now is even close to the genocide of Jews but it's the same principle : people look the other way as long as no one does anything to them.

It's like that quote...

"In Germany, they first came for the communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Catholics and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Catholic.

Then they came for me - and by that time there was nobody left to speak up."

Pastor Marton Niemoller

Most people life their lives that way : turn your head and pretend nothing is happening, even when there are full-page pictures on the front of your magazine about what is happening.

[Blashy]

Originally posted by Rolend:

Interesting point of view and possible. I do think you are wrong Blashy, I think by 44 the Russians would of been ready and Stalin was as much a nut case as Hitler, those two were bound to knock heads.

Yeah you're right, Stalin was Hitler, the only thing that stopped him from doing the same was exaustion of fighting the Germans.

[Lars]

Originally posted by TaoJah:

Let's face it : there was no political motivation from the UK and the US to help France, Benelux and Poland out, they just watched the Germans invade country after country.

Strange, UK policy for about 300-400 years was to prevent any one power from dominating the continent. So where do you get this?

[JerseyJohn]

The U. K. was never a continental military power. It's armies, historically, fought in alliance with one major continental power against another. As Lars said, a deliberate policy to keep any one of them from controlling the continent.

Post France falls 1940 was similar to Post 1804-5 Austria/Prussia defeated by Napoleon. The only thing UK was able to do in either instance was snip at the immediately dominant power and wait for it to get involved in another major war -- both times with Russia. Same strategic situation except in the twentieth century (both world wars) the United States entered as an additional ally.

Anyway, the U. K. never just watched either Hitler or Napoleon invading smaller nations. They were always active in some way, usually in financing insurrections -- as they did in Yugoslavia, France and elsewhere in WWII and in Spain during the Napoleonic Wars, where they were also able to directly support the cause with an army under Wellington.

A big difference from looking on passively.

-- Regarding the United States, there was no reason at all for anyone to have expected them to become involved. Probably any president but FDR would even have passed on Lend Lease and the destroyers for bases deal and, in the long run, would have kept the country completely clear of the wars in both the Europe and Asia, no motivation for either Pearl Harbor or a German DoW.

[TaoJah]

Originally posted by Lars:

Strange, UK policy for about 300-400 years was to prevent any one power from dominating the continent. So where do you get this?

Hmmm ? The UK didn't interfer anymore in Colonial Europe after they send their troops to defeat Napoleon.

The only exception was the BEF in WWI and even that they did very, very, VERY reluctant : they favored a pure naval war against Germany. But they signed a treaty with... Belgium. In 1839 Belgium had to give away a part of it's territory to the Netherlands and a part of Luxembourgh became independant. In return the UK signed a treaty to come and defend them whenever they got attacked by whoever. After 75 years that treaty was called upon to demand troops from the UK to come and defend Belgium. They only sent one small army : the BEF.

And the UK won't have forgotten that France send a bunch of troops and money to the US to fight the UK for it's independance from the UK. The huge French aid was recognized by all parties : the prelimeary peace-treaties and the official end of the US independance war were both signed in Paris as a thanks to the French.

No, I disagree : IMHO the UK didn't do alot in the European mainland.

But of course, all what-if scenarios are always purely theoretical discussions !

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by TaoJah:

Let's face it : there was no political motivation from the UK and the US to help France, Benelux and Poland out, they just watched the Germans invade country after country.

What was the BEF? A school choir?

Perhaps you forget Dunkirk, which was a little incident on the road to the fall of France, and that other little battle in the air - the Battle of Britain? The Blitz? Ever heard of Coventry?

The battle of River Platte perhaps? Bismark?

Perhaps your inclusion of the UK in there is a mis-type?

Certainly the USA wasn't interested in getting involved but it's pretty silly to say the UK wasn't!!

[Lars]

Originally posted by TaoJah:

Hmmm ? The UK didn't interfer anymore in Colonial Europe after they send their troops to defeat Napoleon.

I gotta go find Xyphorus and get him in here. He'll tell you all about perfidious Albion.

[Rolend]

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

...

-- Regarding the United States, there was no reason at all for anyone to have expected them to become involved. Probably any president but FDR would even have passed on Lend Lease and the destroyers for bases deal and, in the long run, would have kept the country completely clear of the wars in both the Europe and Asia, no motivation for either Pearl Harbor or a German DoW.

You are right and even though FDR was one of the most loved US presidents the America people did NOT like lend lease or anything to do with the war in Europe. We were very isolationist at the time and it is another reason I have to dislike FDR.

What I find funny is how America gets bashed on the one hand for not doing enough to get into the war earlier and helping the poor down trodden people of Europe and then when we do take action like in Iraq we are accused of being war mongering Imperialist. I guess any old reason to hate America is good enough. There now you managed to drag me into a political discussion, crap guys lets try and stick to the game